Double standards.

The most I consider the double standard of bodies, particularly who cultural standards placed on male and female bodies. More after the break because some people get all sensitive about pictures of Breasts. Worse some people even get into trouble for them being on the screen.

If you enjoyed that comic and want more here you go. The Artist goes by Kendrawcandraw.

Now I think we can all agree unless you lived under a rock since the 50’s that women are put to very different standards then are men, one which are harder to meet and I would say are often contradictory. Though for this point my main concern is how some of these standards exist as laws, or as rules which must be followed for work, to blend in, or on school children.

I think the most ubiquitous and related type of law in North America is that the breast possessed by women are not allowed to be exposed, but men’s breast are under no such restriction. Or I suppose it’s more often the female nipple which is outlawed. Those dastardly nipples! They’re capable of feeding babies you know!

Now progress has been made on this issue, and is hardly an issue in much of Europe anymore. Though I don’t think there is a compelling reason to restrict the breast of one gender and not restrict the breasts of other genders equally. If your going to impose an arbitrary rule you might as well be consistent. Though I hope it’s obvious that I’m in favor of removing such outdated and puritanical laws. Although I primarily want to do this not just because they are silly and unfair, but because I think they do real harm. First in what I guess will be more controversial, by making female breast and nipples kept solely to the private realm we add to the over sexualiztion of female bodies. In simplest terms I can think of by hiding away the female body we make the female body restricted to home life, medical care and sex. Private, shameful, or sexulized. While this is very much over simplified I think it’s important to remember that things lose much of there power, good or bad, when they become common place. I’m of the opinion that we should just over the fact that some people have larger breasts then other people and stop making a big deal about it.

Second I also think it should not be such a faux pas, or worse against the law for a mother to feed her infant child. These little more natural then a mother breast feeding her child, but because of all these social constructs about what’s “proper” we’ve gotten to the point where we feel we need to shame practical body parts for child rearing. The very notion that we would shame a person for having a body part that effectively everyone has should be more then enough to condemn the whole idea (imagine if someone tried to convince you of the shamefulness of showing, or worse using your thumbs in public). Though when people put the shaming of a persons body over the welfare of a young child I can’t help but be disgusted.

So who agree who dissents. Do you think people should be free to expose there chests breasts, do you think it would be better if all the breasts where best left covered? You know why I think laws and cultural taboo’s banning exposed breasts are unfair and harmful. Further thoughts, example and experiences are always welcome.

48 responses to “Double standards.”

Hmmmm, interesting thought…. But I like that my beasts are sexualized. They (my breasts ) are a mystery that only a few select have been honored to see and touch. I don’t believe making it legal for women to go around topless will, over time, take away the sexualality of breasts. I could be wrong, but I bet nudists still have breast play during sex. I bet native tribes do have breast play during sex.

We now have a society where they can Google boobs anytime they want, but men and women still find boobs sexy. Violent crimes still happen even tho there is easy access to see boobs.

Breast feeding in public is a different topic. It should never be illegal, but I feel women should be wise on how they do it. I breastfed all 6 of my kids. Sometimes I covered, but I’m in the south and it’s damn hot. I would just lift my shirt and attach the baby, the only way if someone saw a nipple was if they were really looking lol. I know some would pull the whole tit out for the world to see… I think that’s tacky. We are a civilized society and that does include that we keep certain body parts covered at certain times at certain places.

Ass cheeks are not illegal to show, but honestly, I don’t want to see ass cheeks everywhere. At the beach or pool.. Ok… But at a restaurant or grocery shopping? Nah, cover it.

I’m fine with designated areas for female (nude or topless beaches is one example) but to just pull the girls out because it’s hot, I’m not a fan of. Keeping our nipples covered isn’t going to destroy or hurt our confidence, women are much stronger than that.

I agree and disagree with some of your points. I don’t inherently like or dislike that female (including mine) breasts are sexualized. I have a neutral opinion concerning this topic. I think that it is inherent that breasts in general are sexualized, at least to some extent, and when I say in general I mean them all, both gender, male and female. For this reason I disagree with your point that “breast play” being part of intercourse has any support in your reasoning. In both of the examples you provided, nudists and “native tribes”, the breasts are not concealed all day by a covering and yet are still inherently sexual during the act. Male breast are included in breast play btw as nipples are still functional and sensual for males. I think that point better supports the opinion to uplift law prohibiting the exposure of female breasts. I agree with the point that you like having control over them as part of your body and sexuality. But you still would have autonomy over who gets to touch them and who you have intercourse with which would still provide you that control over yourself. Also, it would still be YOUR own choice to keep them covered/concealed if legislation was passed that allowed women’s’ breasts to be exposed. The law would not be mandatory that they remain uncovered, just that it wouldn’t be something punishable to expose them as a female- the same principle that already applies to males.

Go for it. I love breasts; I think they are awesome and beautiful. They are undoubtedly sexually arousing, however, as a sometime nudist I’ll agree that with unsexuallised exposure one gets used to seeing them to the point where one hardly notices them. I think nudism shows that to see the inner person you have to see, and then move past, the outer person.

I loved the cartoon you used. It does make the point that there is double standard. I agree that there are some double standards that could certainly be corrected, but I don’t personally believe the exposed chest is one of them. Now I could be wrong here, but it has been my experience that a topless woman affects a man (especially a young impressionable man) much more than a topless man affects a woman. This is also a generalization and certainly not true of every instance; but I would wager that if a hundred 13 year old boys see a woman walking around topless, at least ninety of them are going to go home and start searching around the internet, either trying to satisfy their curiosity or just looking for more of what they saw earlier. This is going to lead a lot of them to pornography, and that is a whole other can of worms, but for now I would simplify by saying that I believe that’s a very bad thing. Whereas if a hundred 13 year old girls see a topless man, I doubt even ten of them would go home and start looking for more information or more images.

That being said, we should still try to look out for those ten (or how ever many the actual number would be; I haven’t been able to find solid research on this theory but I’d certainly be interested in it). So if anything is to be done on the “bare chest” matter in the name of equality, I would suggest fighting to get men to wear shirts instead of fighting to make it okay for women not too. That being said, I think there are much bigger equality matters that a higher percent of the populates would want solutions to.

Very interesting read. keep it up. These kind of discussions are how we start the process of finding solutions.

Well I think you underestimate the sexuality of women, and overestimate the effect on of breasts of boys. Now sure teens are effected by bodies, but beilive me you don’t need to see exposed breast to want to see exposed breasts. A kid, even preteens and young with an internet connection can be curiosity about the human body and can find pornographic material. The way you control porn consumption is not regulating how people dress in public, but by regulating a kids access to pornographic material.

Now imagine a hundred 13 year old boys who’ve seen breasts in public since they where two, sure many of them will be sexually aroused some of time time, but any because of puberty more then it’s about breasts. Though if they are use to i then I don’t see it being any more arousing then a a person in a swimsuit, or a revealing article of clothing. Though yes in the end I don’t think that we are protecting kids from anything if we make sure people wear shirts, because I don’t think kids need protection from porn, but should be told what it is once they might come in contact with it. The best protection is sex education, and the best sex education is comprehensive one.

I cover my breasts because I don’t want them flopping around. they get in the way. (My husband feels the same way about his penis and testicles). I’ve seen plenty, of both, and don’t find the sight interesting.

I shave my pits because I like them smooth, not prickly and the sweat doesn’t linger. I shave my legs because I don’t like the feeling of my leg hairs being bent backward. I don’t think anyone should tell me that I “must” do any of these things because they don’t like it.

Yes the point is not to force people, but to remove the restrictions all together around . Now I’m sure some people will take that to the extreme, and some limits may need to exist, but it’s all a question of harm, and it does not cause real harm to shave, or not shave your arm pits, but it does cause harm to impose and enforce one standard. Nor do I think it cause real harm to allow women the option of going topless. Some people will be offended sure, but I highly doubt they receive any harm.

If you talk about the importance of womanhood in terms of the beauty of the design, and argue against women’s bodies being seen as functional or a “work-horse,” then it seems to me that you are arguing that what is important about women is how we look (presumably to others, that is, men). And that what is not important about women is what we can accomplish (that would be too crudely work-horse-like, apparently).

Well, I value my body primarily for what I can accomplish with it, not for its beauty, and I think your argument is oppressive and patronising. I will not accept the limitations of a focus on being pleasing to the eye, rather than an active participant in the kingdom of God in my own right.

Again, I never implied that women’s importance rested solely in their aesthetic pleasure. You are reading these post out of context instead of interpreting them within the parameters of the original discussion. My preceding comments were in reference to, and only to, the fact that women should dress modestly and not reduce the nature of their bodies to pure anatomical features, but rather something holy and sacred, in contrast to the way some primitive cultures have adopted a more animalistic portrayal of the human body.

I in no way was making reference to women’s capacity for laborious work. I know your just as capable of accomplishing many things with your bodies other than standing still looking pretty. If you wanted to have a conversation about the functional purpose of women’s role in society then that would have been a different conversation than what hessianwhithteeth and I were discussing here.

But the contrast you made was not between a woman’s body and an animal’s body, but between a woman’s body and a man’s body. And somehow a woman’s body is more “holy and sacred” than a man’s, and thus needs to be hidden where a man’s does not?

If my body is sacred, it is sacred because of what it can do, not because of how it looks. It’s your focus on appearance which I’m taking issue with, because you seem to be working out of a dichotomy (man, worker, not-beautiful, not hidden; woman, different, beautiful, hidden) which I see as oppressive and limiting women’s potential to live life to the full.

Look I don’t know what to tell here, your resolved on making this a conversation that it isn’t. But I mean hey if you feel that your body isn’t sacred and that exposing your breast like men will somehow liberate you from this deep oppression that has manged to hinder your ability to live life to the fullest, then don’t mind me.

Hey now I don’t think that’s a fair interpretation of what Paidiske was saying. She didn’t say that her body isn’t sacred, she left that as a open question.

She also talking about the basic premises of your argument, not just the original question about whether or not breasts should be exposed.

What I read in her previous comment, is that Paidiske is challenging your ideas (or at least her interpretations of your ideas) that women’s bodies should be somehow hidden and are somehow fundamentally different as oppressive and unfairly limiting.

“She didn’t say that her body isn’t sacred, she left that as a open question.”

On the contrary that is precisely what the both of you are saying, that a women’s breast are nothing more than anatomical limbs, and there’s nothing sacred about them. How could you argue that they were sacred unless through intelligent design? if God is just a delusion then we are no different than all the butt-naked animals running around the wild.

Well you should stop confusing our positions, Paidiske is a Anglican Preist, and I’m am a biologist and an atheist. She left her stance open. Though I do in fact think that our bodies are not sacred. You would probably do well to consider our argument different, even though our conclusions are similar.

Also your last sentence is by my reckoning nothing more than an attempt to render my position ridiculous.

If you’d actually like to hear my position that’s one thing, but that hasty one line conclusion is not at all representative of what I think. For example you do not need a god to notice that humans are a fair bit different then other animals. Not completely different, but certainly unique in a number of ways.

“Even if I accepted ID – which I don’t, but let’s leave that aside for now”

An Anglican priest you say? I’ve never heard of a Christian let alone a priest that doesn’t believe in intelligent design.

I’m sure you have a more polished up explanation of your belief on humanity than my previous statement would indicate, but the cold-hard truth of the matter is that if there is no God then what difference does it make how we reconcile things in our head. Not to be rude but I’m just not interested in the opinion of someone who denies absolutes, I’m only interested in truth, outside of God there can be no absolutes and no truth.

While I do not think your talking to me, absolutes are a fools play ground as far as I’m concerned. We are always trapped by our base assumptions which we can never shown to be 100% true. People have been trying for thousands of years now, and the fact of the matter is the best we have is inductive reasoning. We can not deduce absolutes we can only infer them, which means we can’t be absolutely sure about anything. This doesn’t entail hard epistemological relativism, but absolute truth is unattainable. We can only work with degrees of truth, and levels of uncertainly.

Absolutes are not the same thing as someone being absolutely sure. Truth doesn’t rest upon our ability to be convinced of it. If a tree falls in the forest then it’s absolutely truthful that it did indeed fall regardless if I’m aware of it. My point is that the tree falling provides an absolute just as God’s existence provides absolutes with regards to morality and purpose.

We as humans are incapable of discovering absolutes on our own, but a sovereign God is more than capable of making himself known to us, such that we would expect a creator God to make his words known to his creation. “and the word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw his glory”

Though I didn’t say there wasn’t absolute truth theoretically , so much as we have no access to it. So effectively we can not have absolute truths.

You can also posit a hypothetical deity with this absolute knowledge, but to say we can have absolute knowledge from said deity we need to be able to show absolutely that said deity exists, AND that they can give us absolute knowledge.

If there was already a widely known way around this problem and we had a god giving us absolute knowledge then I wouldn’t be an atheist, but putting faith in the existance of such a being is still an assumption you make, and is an unjustified assumption, so your still stuck making inferences based on ultimately unprovable assumption(s).

Now if you can solve this problem of basic assumption you’ll change the world, but don’t imagine such as task if easy, and if it’s possible at all it will likely change the very way we think about logic and our relationship with our reality.

Our relationship with reality is more akin to empirical evidence such as personal observations and personal experiences. more than it is with concrete material scientific fact as you are implying. It seems that people only tend to invoke this rigorous criteria when discussing the existence of God. Our observations and experience tells us that Gravity exists, we don’t need a scientific equation for it, but indeed when it comes to God we demand he print his name legibly on the dotted lines.

I do think my body is sacred – because my life is sacred – and as it happens, I’m relatively modest in my dress (but that’s a matter of personality and culture rather than profound theological conviction). My issue is with you drawing a distinction between men and women on this point, and putting the focus on women’s aesthetic appeal.

Are my breasts “nothing more” than anatomical limbs? With my hands I hold my child and with my breasts I fed her. Why are the breasts more sacred than my hands? I’m not saying that my breasts are not sacred, I am saying that my whole body is sacred, and I reject the argument that that’s about beauty, or that sacredness requires that they be hidden.

As for intelligent design… sigh. (Is this where I add that I, too, trained as a biologist and understand genetics and evolutionary theory quite well?) Do I believe that God created the universe and allowed the universe to develop as it did? Yes. Do I believe that God directed the process of evolution in order to produce structures of irreducible complexity, etc? No. For further reading on such matters I recommend the works of the Revd Dr John Polkinghorne, Anglican priest and theoretical physicist, who writes about human free will sitting alongside a natural free process (and thus scope for genuine undirected development by natural selection etc). I am by no means alone as a Christian or a member of the clergy to reject the pseudoscience of intelligent design.

I don’t deny absolutes, but for me, arbitrary modesty standards aren’t one of them. (Gravity, however, is an absolute – and one with a scientific equation).

I’m not sure what pagan bible your reading but it’s safe to say that it’s not the one of the Judeo-Christian God. Why when Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge did they sow leaves to cover the shame of their nakedness? they did not make masks to cover their faces, nor shoes to cover their feet, or gloves to cover their hands. No they covered that which was crafted for purposes much more private than that of our feet, hands or face.

You are the one drawing the dichotomy between purpose and looks. You think that if a women’s body is sacred then somehow her purpose can’t extend outside of her beauty. It is your rebellious feminist spirit that causes you to reject the distinctions that God made between men and women, you are showing some serious signs of indoctrination in all kinds of false doctrines, this is even more evident in your adherence to the evolutionary processes, which is rooted in nothing more than mysticism and gnosticism, there is no archaeological evidence to support the transition of one species into a fundamentally new anatomical creatures, nor have mutations ever been proven to account for anything other than minor variations within species. Descent with modification is an extremely exotic explanation for the question of biological diversity and complexity.

It’s a story crafted by ancient cultures, with the very limited amount of knowledge they had. To take it literally is childish. So when you talk about false doctrines I can only laugh, are your ignorance and inability to critically examine your own position.

Also you clearly don’t understand constitutes as evidence for evolution if you think archeology has anything to do with it.

Since you deseratly need a proper education in biology you can watch these. the lectures of evoution start on episode 9, but all of them a worth watching.

Also for the claims of creationism, Aron Ra is still the best a tearing them apart. they’ll be a book soon enough, but there are still classics. I’d suggest the Crash Course first though as these one are friendly to your position, and if helps if you understand what the theories actually are

Otherwise I find your tactics increasingly dishonest, as you contiune to put words into out mouths and pretend as though your interpretation of the bible is the only valid one.

I invite you to go out and get a proper understanding of the biology. The crash course video’s are an excellent starting point. Then come back, but if you continue to throw creationist rhetorical devices and misinformation at me like it’s at all new or interesting I just to get board and moderate all your posts.

This might seem dismissive, but your failing to contend with our thoughts or the science is a fair or accurate manner. That is why I must insist you must properly educate yourself I gave you the crash course links use them, they are very helpful for those mostly unfamiliar with the topic.

You have to be joking with these video links, I would have expected more from you. If you actually want to hear an amazing scientific discussion/debate regarding the efficacy of evolution I suggest the link above.

That’s a debate, there’s no way in hell it can compare to properly prepared content. Debate are terrible for actually indicating truth, but are excellent for determining who’s a better speaker.

If you think a debate is a proper counter response to learning material then you’re the one who must be joking.

You’re unbelievable. Also if your insulted that I’d insist you do your research. understand it’s because you’ve shown multiple clear misunderstandings of evolutionary theory. Because of those clear misunderstandings, why would I even begin to presume that you would know what a good debate would even look like.

No debates are perfect for determining truth because both parties can hold each other in check, instead of one partying erecting straw men and blasting it with wild assertions that can’t be rebutted. Both parties are fully aware of the topic they are debating and have sufficient time to prepare for it.

Why am I unbelievable, because I don’t believe what you do? Cause I don’t adopt the orthodox consensus that world was developed by a natural unguided process? The only thing I have said is that there is no evidence in the fossil record documenting the slow progressive process of Darwinian evolution and that natural selection acting on random mutations have not been known to account for large morphological adaptations, if you think that I’m wrong then feel free to offer your competing scientific explanation instead of just vehemently asserting how I have no idea what I’m talking about. Your arguments are petty and weak

Like here’s a link to the Wikipedia article common descent (that all life on earth is related): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
It’s not compete it’s not perfect, but it give a proper sense of the kind of evidence and the sheer amount of that evidence that has been compiled.
If you want more from me, then what you want me to do it take you step by step though the history of evolutionary theory, and how it’s been show true and passed the test placed before it. That’s not something I can do is a simple comment.
Now when I linked the previous video I forgot this series.
I’d suggest starting with episode 4, and then going back later if you ever plan too.
and the rest of the series here.
This series also explain how you would go about falsifying phylogeny, and by extension much of evolutionary theory.
If you can watch the first video I linked here I can watch the debate.

So I just watched the first video Foundations of Feliforme Families, It’s a good video, I think he touches on some good points. One of my issues with his argument though is that he seems to be asserting that biological diversity in it self is proof of Evolution, at one point his argument was “why would God create so many different cats?” Furthermore the video isolates evolution down to minor variations within species, members of ID don’t deny that natural selection acting on mutations have the power to create speciation, one finch turning into another finch or one cat turning into another cat. What we reject is the idea that natural selection acting on mutations has the power to create fundamentally new biological organisms, such as the protocetus, a land mammal, evolving into a fully aquatic whale.

Dogs most certainly did not turn into cats, I concede this fact. But it is a fundamental principle of evolution that all living organisms came from one primordial form however many billions of years ago it may have been, ID challenges the mechanism of natural selection and mutations in accounting for such macro-evolution. Micro-evolution or minor variations within species seems to be perfectly plausible, but I think the discussion goes a bit further than this.

Frist a fintch does not turn into another finch. A finch give births to finches and those finches with have a variety of different characteristics. These minor variation, and the combination of those variations help to determine the success of those baby finches and there chances to successfully reproduce. Repeat this over and over and have variable environments, and soon you have finch who are better at surviving in one place, and one which are better at surviving in another place, if those two population get separated, say by a storm blowing some off course, or by the separation of a large body of water little to no interbreeding happens to keep the species connected genetically for many thousands of years. Over time as those tiny variations stack up. If those two species where to again interact regularly, it’s very like they would either not have any interest interbreeding, or have offspring which would be unviable, or simple could no conceive offspring all together.

As for the mirco macro distinction. Firstly why Aron brings them up and they are discussed in introductory biology course sometimes the fact is evolutionary theory doesn’t actually recognize a proper distinction between micro and macro evolution. The reason why is because it is a when does a heap become a pile question. Macro evolution is micro evlution, but more of it. It’s a change in scale nothing more. The only difference is the time scale.

If you go back and watch the last 30 seconds or so starting at 13:00, you will see Aron point out a macro evolutionary event. It might be hypothetical in this case, but he his deal with the common ancestor of Dogs and cats, so it’s a rather old one in the first place.

“ID challenges the mechanism of natural selection and mutations in accounting for such macro-evolution.”

I don’t disagree that ID tries to challenge evolutionary theory, it’s just that it can not adequately predict or explain the variety of organism we so or how all organism appear to be related. Though if a god magically inserted life forms into the world, why would he use the same systems for all organism, why would he not give the giraffe more vertebra in it’s neck, so it properly flex it’s neck for drinking, other animals with similarly, or much longer next had more vertebrae. Why would he give better vision to octopi or squid then to us. The best you can do when trying to explain many of these conundrums with ID is that “god’s will is not ours to understand,” but evolutions can point to now the different structures evolved.

Why do giraffes only have so many vertebrae? Because all mammals only have that many vertebrae, and the mutations necessarily to give the giraffe more vertebrae are far less likely to occur then the mutations for elongating the existing vertebrae. For the eyes of octopi, there eyes evolved entirely separately then ours, (there are approximately 40 different evolution events for eyes) and they have blood vessels behind there rod and cone cell in there eyes which allow more light to contact there rods and cones.

To to recap, and to help make sure I didn’t miss anything.

Yes evolution is all about tiny changes over many generation. To say that evolution by natural selection is not about small variations over time is it not understand one of the key principles of evolutionary theory.

Evolutionary theory does not suggest that, to quote you.

“that natural selection acting on mutations has the power to create fundamentally new biological organisms”

Even in the whale example, nothing fundamentally new was created, thing change, can can over many millions of years (some time quicker, but generally not) part of the organisms can change there roles compared to the ancestral forms.

For example there is nothing fundemtnal diffrent about the winds of a bat and the arm of a human. They have largely different roles indeed. But they have muscle like we do and skin that’s largely the same, and when we compare the bone structure, well here’s a picture.

You can see the marked similarity, 4 fingers, a tumb like apendage. They have a Radius, Humorous and Ulna just like we do. While some bats are missing one finger, this is perfectly sensible, as you can see how one is far less important then the others and is already smaller. The webbing between the fingers? Well some human even have webbed fingers, so that’s not fundamentally different either.

Though when we look at the bird skeliton, while we can see some similarities we also clearly see market differences. Though unlike bats with us, our shared ancestors with birds existed long before the dinosaurs existed and where early reptiles. So it’s again it’s relatively easy to see how after many hundreds of millions of years those tiny varation can add up little by little.

We know that mutation can add infromation. For a simple example, people can be born with extra fingers, or a more resent development, some people have 4 separate different colour cones in their eyes, which allows then to see slightly into the UV spectrum like birds. Although birds have 5 types of cones (and mantis shrimp have 16!). That is new genetic information, although it’s nothing more substantial then a mutated gene for a red cone, but one that causes a heterozygous women to be able to see extra colours.

So again evolution doesn’t fundamentally change anything, but given evolutionary time, something can look fundamentally different even though in truth it is in many ways much the same. Perhaps the most powerful example I’ll leave you with is DNA, why would we all have almost exactly the same DNA code and structure with all cellular organism on this planet if we did not arise from a common ancestor.

Also natural selection doesn’t act on mutations, but on individuals in populations. So while a mutation can harm or benefit, or change nothing about the survivability of an organism, natural selection occurs on the organism level, not the gene level.

Evolution in turn does not occur on the organism level or the genetic level, but the population level.

Your make a good case, and you explain it very well. I’m going to read over it another time or two and get a better grasp on it while you check out that debate. The debate is a little long so no rush trying to get through it.

If I might point out one thing about the debate that I think is really relevant to this topic though, Dr. Sternberg and Dr. Meyer talk a lot about the ratio of functional mutations to non-functional mutations. In the words of Dr. Meyer “do mutations readily allow creatures to jump from one island of functionality to the next?” meaning, is it possible to get the mutations necessary for these evolutionary developments within a given time-span. Dr. Sternberg attempts to answer this question using population genetics, I’m interested to hear your thoughts on it after you finish listening.

I’ll need to pop through it again tomorrow hitting the high points, but it was fairly interesting, though amusingly a bit out of date already. I’ll also need to double check who’s talking when because it’s easy to miss who’s actually speaking, or at least I found it easy.

According to Genesis 3:7, Adam and Eve made “loincloths” for themselves. Which, if you take it literally, might make an argument for the necessity of covering the genitals. It’d be an odd loincloth indeed that covered the breasts, though.

Rebellious feminist spirit…? I don’t know about that. I’m feminist in that I believe that God created men and women equal and God’s will is that one sex not be oppressed by the other, and I live in obedience to that. As for rebellious, I’m really not. I live comfortably within the discipline of my denomination and work comfortably under the authority of those above me.

I don’t reject the distinctions that God made between men and women, I just believe them to be very few. Most of the distinctions which our culture observes are much more social constructs than either God-given traits or biological imperatives.

Evolutionary thought is rooted neither in mysticism nor gnosticism (the idea of Darwin as a mystic is really laughable). Some social Darwinism has been associated with mysticism in the forerunners of the Völkisch movement, but that’s a whole other kettle of fish (and for the record, I think social Darwinism is a dangerous and unsound school of thought).

Your ignorance on genetics is showing, but I’ll leave you to follow that up with the links that have been recommended to you if you choose.

Personally I don’t think most women would be comfortable with this, it seems taking off more clothes would only open them up to more objectification, not reduce it. It’s because of the promiscuity that men have become these sexual fiends in the first place, we lust through our eyes, I don’t think the way to combat this is through completely inoculating or continually desensitizing us to beauty of the women’s body. There are plenty of ways a women can dress modestly and still be comfortable. Classy is where its at! 😉

and as far as the double standards go, well I think it’s obvious men and women are different, our bodies are different, the idea of trying to reduce the women’s body down to the nature of a mans body seems to comply with this whole “women can do anything men can do” rhetoric in our society. obviously it’s good for women to have free rights just as much as men i’m not arguing that, but I think it’s silly how we try to pretend like men and women are the same creatures, we’re not we have totally different dynamics to our nature and to our bodies and there’s nothing wrong with this at all, we should celebrate and honor these differences instead of trimming us all down to fit the same ‘costume’.

My concern is that if we are going to take this approach then why not just embrace full nudity, I mean by wearing shorts or bathing suits aren’t we just privatizing and sensualizing those parts of our bodies..?

Well I did not say that women have to go around topless, I was making the point that to make such a thing illegal is unfair, and harmful. Though let’s be honest, lots of men wouldn’t want to go around topless either, and that’s not a good reason to make it illegal I’m sure we can agree.
I also do not think we could in any sense fully desensitize people to the human body. effectively every person is attached to other human bodies and will continue to be. It’s not as though we are desensitized to faces because we see them all the time. What I’m really trying to suggest is that we try to pull away some of the sexual “power” or sexual connotations we have we female breasts. This does not mean we will some have sexual attract to breasts but I wouldn’t mind a world where when a person see breasts they do not automatically think sex, as is often the case. It should be clear that this is not a default human trait as there have been no shortages of tribal people, and classical populations where exposed breasts where both common place and well excepted. Even now there are cultures where exposed breasts are perfectly acceptable. So the lusting with our eyes comment really has little bearing on the matter. It’s is not as though women do not lust with their eyes either, and it’s also the case that not all men do. OR the fact that I think people probably shouldn’t stare at other people for extended period of time, or cat call or what have you. Now I’m sure you’ll probably tell me some “boys will be boys” line, but that not good enough. Boys and men can do much better, and have far more control over their actions including sexual actions then we give them credit for.
As for male and female bodies being obviously different. Sure we are different, but it’s not like one sex grows horns and is twice the size of the other. The only anatomical part which is actually obviously different is our genitalia, everything else fits within a range with far more overlap then not between women and men. That fact is that there is no shortage of androgynous people, and that a lot of what we consider as obvious sex differences are gender performance rather than physical traits. You said:
“… we have totally different dynamics to our nature and to our bodies and there’s nothing wrong with this at all.”
No we don’t not really. Biologically the differences are pretty minor, the big two are genitalia and upper body strength, but there is not definitive line between male and female. Even things like hormone as range wildly from person to person. In humans hormone can be quite telling but they are by no mean definitive.
The simple fact about sex differences is that there really are not that many in humans overall, and the differences we do think as telling are generally nothing more the performances we do because of the gendered expectation that are sewn into our culture. I also think it need to be stated clearly that our culture is by no means properly representative of human nature in general.
As for full body nudity I’m not opposed to it. Though due to how I was raised I’m not comfortable with it either. However, I know of people who are happy to be nude and don’t care who sees them. Though generally this is a case of one step at a time.

Finally to end this long reply, I’m not at all saying women and men need to fit the same mold, though it needs to be said that gender and sex are not the same thing. I’m saying it’s wrong to make it illegal to have exposed female breasts, because it’s harmful and unfair. Not that male and female persons all have to do the same thing. Only that opportunities of expression should not be limited arbitrarily, and everyone has breasts (minus those with mastectomies that is)

I agree with your general theme that when we see women’s breast we shouldn’t just think sex, although I think in many ways women are just as much to blame for the objectification of their breast as men are for objectifying them.

Sure there are cultures where exposed breast don’t illicit any sensuality, but I’m not sure this is something that should necessarily be applauded. again I think in some ways this has reduced the women down to a purely functional “work-horse” type of body that doesn’t really translate the beauty of their design. While I think we as men should stop objectifying breast, and women should stop sensualizing their breast, I don’t think the most appropriate way to go about this is by desensitizing people to female breast in general. I think rather we should just promote modesty, and lets be honest, women don’t have to go out in rain coast and sweat pants to accomplish this like the illustration above is insinuating.

Though I think it’s somewhat douchy when you see men running around the streets with their shirt off, I think the reason why it’s not illegal for men’s to be topless as opposed to women, is because there is a general consensus around most parts of the world that the women’s body is all together different in it’s nature, not necessarily it’s anatomical make-up, but in it’s design it’s much much more crafted for beauty than the man’s body, at least in my personal opinion. I suppose when you reduce it town to purely anatomical features though it’s all really the same thing.

To posit that women are “crafted for beauty” in our design makes a number of assumptions – that we are designed by a purposeful process, for a start – but also that our purpose in the order of creation is intrinsically different from men. This is a difficult argument to sustain either on scientific or on faith-based grounds, and smacks of the view that women are intended for men’s pleasure, rather than as subjects in their own right.

Even if I accepted ID – which I don’t, but let’s leave that aside for now – on what grounds would you argue that the Creator has designed or crafted women for men’s pleasure, (of which our aesthetic appeal would be a part), rather than for relationship with the Creator, and responsible agency within creation?

I’m sorry but I never once expressed the notion that women were made for men’s pleasure. All I said was that women were beautifully designed. I have no idea where your getting this idea that I was trying to imply women have no purpose other than to fulfill man’s carnal desire.

I also thing you’re confusing cultural concepts of beauty with biblical ideas. Are we not all according to your holy book made in the image of your god? Would we then need to all be made beautiful?

Though really if your argument rests of intelligent design, and you think there exists some fundamental difference between men and women, when biologically that’s just not something that can be substantiated.

We we where to simplify thing down to a spectrum, with male and female on either side which like any simplification is still false. You have female intersex and male, and if you take all the people in the world and line them up, sure most would fit in male of female, but a sizable chunk (as many as 10%) wouldn’t fit in either, some would appear to, but would have enough traits from the other category to make things unclear.

And it needs to be point out that these are categories we used to explain the world. We end up pretending that some how reality is forcing them upon us when we are really the ones trying to force our ideas onto reality.

It’s tricky, because women who bare their breasts in public are most likely going to be sexualised. But when not sexualised, like when breastfeeding a baby or pumping, breasts should not be an issue. The problem arises when men sexualise breasts in a non-sexual context. It’s a bit ‘chicken and egg’.

Well women get sexualized anyway, like the transitional period will be a little awkward for some people, but it’s happened before and the it’s not like sexual assaults go up.

Also some men sexual breasts when they’re covered. It’s just going to take a cultural shift, and that will leave a small portion of the population out in the cold, but that will happen no matter that kind of cultural shift occurs.

I agree. Don’t even really have anything to add … other than to reinforce the idea that this is really about policing women’s bodies. Taking societal ownership over women. Because that’s what we do here in Civilization.

A good point, My biggest hope with something along these line is we just stop thrusting these arbitrary rules of people, rules largely concocted a century or two ago by puritans. Rules which have no real benefit other then as a means of restricting expressions, and do nothing to limit harm.